There are hardcore gamers out there so proud of their self-styled character trait that they shall defend it jealously. For indeed, it is they who get to judge whether or not others are worthy of being called gamers, it is they who decide what is and what is not a true videogame, and they shall brutally eject any fail to live up to their high standards. It's just a shame that their standards are bollocks and their judgments hypocritical.

I have always used this definition of gamer. Do you play games, 'yes', do you like playing games, 'yes', do you know how to get the games that interest you (retail, DD, etc), 'yes', congratulations, you are a gamer.

Never did get the whole Hardcore Vs Casual "debate." Course that's probably because what people define as such changes all the time.

If you didn't beat Ninja Gaiden on the Super-Duper-Awesome-Sploder-Ninja-Mindfuck-OMFGWTFBBQ-End-It-Now difficulty you were a scrub. Now it's just liking a game for handhelds, like Angry Birds. Or if you did beat it you were a no life having nerd. Seems like just a bunch of pointless e-peening that comes with the internet.

Huh, interesting. That said, i don't like simple games. I grew up on Earthbound, FF6, Breath of Fire 3, Might and Magic 6+, Baldur's Gate, and so on and so forth. RPGs with some depth to them. Granted, I don't rail on simple games, only games that are being simplified over their previous iterations, so I'm not sure I'm part of the group being talked about anyway.

kiri2tsubasa:I have always used this definition of gamer. Do you play games, 'yes', do you like playing games, 'yes', congratulations, you are a gamer.

aye, but my definition of casuls vs hardcore is the amount not the diffculty or challage, if you play game a little, you are casual, if you play games alot you are hardcore, diffculty does not factor in.

Interesting episode there, Can't say I've actually played Infinity Blade myself but I can't see anything wrong with it. I don't play all that many ISO games, but only because I have an unhealthy attachment to my keyboard and mouse :P

While I agree that Jim here does have a few points, I think his argument is rather flawed. Yes, PunchOut was indeed a good game... a very very long time ago, when there were significant limitations to what you -could- do within a gaming scene.

The real reason a lot of us 'hardcore gamers' (I guess I can call myself that, having been a gamer since C64's days of counting pixels for the perfect The Last Ninja jump and so on?) frown at the casual gaming industry is because of it's effect on the rest of the gaming community. A lot of the limitations imposed on casual consoles (including phones and such) by the hardware and interface leads quite naturally to less complex games with less depth. (You can pronounce the word 'depth' funny as much as you want, it's meaning is still just as valid as it's always been.)

This in turn leads to a lot of quite frankly insulting games on more powerful platforms where interface is less restricted and the same goes for the hardware. Games get developed for multiple platforms at once these days, which means the lowest common denominator is what -everyone- gets. This is one of the reasons 'casual' gaming is severely impacting the more 'hardcore' communities in rather negative ways.

We get less games tailored for our tastes, skill levels and lack of interface limitations. Even the games we do get are infested by 'innovations' that exist purely because of the utter crap game design on inferior platforms. Bossfights are replaced by quicktime events. Fights in general get excruciatingly simple because they're balanced for crap interfaces where you're limited by the hardware in your hands rather than your own skill.

Casual gamers are definitely gamers in their own right. I'm never going to look down upon them for their tastes and preferances in gaming. I am, however, not going to pretend they're not affecting my gaming in rather negative ways. It's not something they are doing intentionally or even know they're doing at all in many cases, since it's largely the industry itself that jumps on the popularity bandwagons and leaves the rest of us behind.

It's a very sad thing to contemplate, really. We gamers were a minority and almost shunned throughout the last twentyfive years and now that we've grown up and gaming is both tolerated and even promoted... we're still a minority that's shunned, only this time by the industry itself and the hordes of 'casuals' that popped up as soon as it wasn't social suicide to be a gamer.

There's very little we can do about this, of course. It's rather unimportant in the long run. Complaining, though? Yeah, we'll keep doing that. It's kind of all we've got left after you casual bastards ruined it all for us, heh.

I always had the impression that to be hardcore it has to be new, that games like Mario and Punch-out are casual because they are old. At least that's the impression that you people of the internet give to me.

hahaha! The Mario Kart player... Oh the Mario Kart player. Very funny episode Jim! I reckon this hypocritical behaviour spawns from the way we socialise on the internet, we see a lot of people willing to hurl poo at each other on youtube but would we see it any where else from these same people in real life? Doubtful. I don't know why but usernames seem to give people a barrier. If someone on the internet thinks I'm an idiot there is no way that they can link my idiotic comments to a real person. I can call a gangster a "fag" on the internet, but they're unlikely to be able to hunt me down and shoot out my knee caps :).

I guess every good point he makes has a counterpart. And that would be it. "Too simple" IS a criticism. I enjoy games with good stories, interesting and lovable characters, complex mechanics and many other things that make up a AAA game. And when I see Mario Kart, for example, of course I gonna say "too simple" in a bad, or rather criticizing, way. Any hardcore gamer would. Such phrase does not imply low quality or something inherently bad about a game. It just means its too simple for that person, too basic.

Its also irrelevant where the gaming roots are. Gaming is moving forward. Its evolution in a basic sense. So I can always appreciate the impact and history of early games, who were intrinsically simple, yet at the same time find them too simple and move to more interesting and complex games. Demonizing gamers who think casual games are too simple is stupid!

Daystar Clarion:Still doesn't explain why you gave Mario Kart that score for 'not changing anything', then MW3 ended up with a very high score.

You know Call of Duty right? That thing that gets repackaged every year?

I'm not a fan of Mario Kart myself, in fact, I prefer CoD to MK, but to see such a huge scoring difference is bizarre.

If you're scoring based solely on them re-releasing and not changing much every year, then yeah, they should be the same.

But that's where any similarities between the two end. One is a shooter, the other is a kart racer for fuck's sake. How anyone can even compare them is just... ridiculous. They're two entirely different games with entirely different styles aimed at entirely different markets.

Or if you want an actual explanation, it's because Call of Duty is really, really good at what it does, which is set-piece campaign, solid shooting controls, and addictive multiplayer and MW3 continued that. Whereas Mario Kart didn't do so well at what it does, which is kart racing. And it didn't do so well at that.

Again, one's a huge-budgeted shooter aimed at the console market. The other's a kart-racer aimed at the handheld market. They have NOTHING in common beyond being games that don't change much with each release.

Qitz:Never did get the whole Hardcore Vs Casual "debate." Course that's probably because what people define as such changes all the time.

If you didn't beat Ninja Gaiden on the Super-Duper-Awesome-Sploder-Ninja-Mindfuck-OMFGWTFBBQ-End-It-Now difficulty you were a scrub. Now it's just liking a game for handhelds, like Angry Birds. Or if you did beat it you were a no life having nerd. Seems like just a bunch of pointless e-peening that comes with the internet.

Not too much of a surprise that they're both Hypocrites.

Next Hardcore Gamers will define themselves by playing with controllers wrapped in barbed wire! And they hit casual gamers with folding chairs and powerbomb them though flaming tables! HARDCORE! HARDCORE! HARDCORE!

1: @0:21-0:36 I believe the proper name for this subset is "PC Gamers."

2: Good to see someone else hates Bomberman Act Zero! HAAAAATE!

3: I believe "Simple is best" is a great way to say it. Just because it's simple doesn't mean its bad. And yes, Mario might be "casual", but it's GOOD. It's a GOOD GAME. I don't care how "deep" or "complex" or "gritty" or "immersive" it is as long as it is GOOD or FUN before any of that.

4: The whole "It's taking resources away from hardcore games" argument is BS. Look at the endless shooter flood we're still stuck in. The only difference between that and what was supposed to be the great "casual apocalypse" is that the shooters are supposed to be the games for us (the "hardcore" gamer) as opposed to trying to get a different market entirely.

There are hardcore gamers out there so proud of their self-styled character trait that they shall defend it jealously. For indeed, it is they who get to judge whether or not others are worthy of being called gamers, it is they who decide what is and what is not a true videogame, and they shall brutally eject any fail to live up to their high standards. It's just a shame that their standards are bollocks and their judgments hypocritical.

Hardcore Hipster here: I've been championing hardcore iOS games before Jim Sterling made a video about it

My game to Champion is Rage on the iOS but NOT the version that was reviewed at launch, but the game subsequently updated (after the metascore had been set) to include REALLY GOOD gyroscope controls that makes it not just very fun to play, but engaging in a really unique way.

I consider myself a "casual" gamer. Whether or not my definition matches yours or anyone else's is a different story. I won't own a Wii, I don't play titles like Mario Kart, and I don't own an iphone, but I also don't take games as super srs as a lot of the so-called (and self-labeled, I might add) "hardcore" crowd.

Is it two dimensional? Well, when you look at the breadth of what the terms cam mean, not really.

i actually played infinity blade on a giant touch screen at Dave&Buster's and well... it was fucking sweet!i spent like 10 bucks on it. so i agree with the argument that it could hold up as a classic game if it were released in the 80's. its also awesome over all. simple or not.

Otaku World Order:So... Call of Duty is casual and Mario Kart is hardcore? Did I wake up in the Bizarro universe or something?

Try playing Double Dash with 4 players going through the final stretch, both racers perfectly in tune with their partners, neck and neck down to the last moment with a blue shell bearing down on you and tell me Mario Kart isn't hard core. I have lost blood over that game.

OT: All kidding aside (though the story really happened) the gaming industry really needs to drop the whole casual/hardcore argument. You can be a hardcore Tetris/Mario/Wii Sports Resort player as easily as you can be a hardcore Halo/Battlefield/COD player. You get what you put in, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm really hoping that entire thing was sarcastic, because Jim's misconception of the word deep (or at least in the usual gamer lingo 'deep', which I assume he's using) is rather astounding. I think had he used the word 'complex' instead this entire thing would make sense, because yes, more complexity does not inherently make a better game. Depth, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast and IS what separates good games from bad 90%-100% of the time.

For those of you confused, or unaware, by the distinction I'm trying to draw is that a complex game has 50 different options, a deep game has 10-15, but upon exploration and experience with the game it is revealed that by combining these elements an enormous amount of possibilities is discovered. An excellent example is Pokemon, easy to pick up and complete and generally straightforward, even simple. But upon a longer exposure to the game it is revealed that genuine mastery of the game is a long (but not necessarily arduous) road, filled with relevant decisions the player can make.

It seems to me Jim doesn't really understand this, because he draws comparisons to the retro age with games that simply don't hold up against them. The original Mario is certainly simple, but it is also deceptively deep. Advanced run-throughs of the game take a good long while to figure out, and require not only a mastery of the game, but of its systems and layout. This is where IOS games really fall down, is that they aren't that well designed (in comparison to the genuine classics, not that they are inherently bad) and are simply ... well simple, and can be completed very easily in a single run-through, and where player decision making is virtually non existent.

Additionally he's comparing games from over twenty years ago, to something made very recently. The fact that that is what it stacks up against is not actually a good case for the game in question.

Personally I find that the IOS would matter more if serious designers actually payed any heed to it, because currently most up-and-comers focus on making downloadable titles for consoles or PC for two reasons. One, they are easier to develop, and two, most 'actual gamer' devs aim to make games for people with history in the medium, perhaps that's a dated perspective but a common one nonetheless. Larger devs also have very little experience designing for tablets and whatnot, meaning they are more likely to develop for consoles and PCs. Until people actually start making games that are more enjoyable, and memorable, on the IOS, I think I'll stick to my other gaming devices.

I grew up with Fallout, Planescape Torment and Deus Ex. When I bitch about gaming "not being hardcore" I ask where can I find games like these now-a-days. (Human Revolution was ... good, just not as mind-boggling as the first). Yes the origin of video-games is about entertainment, but so was that of the movies, and that of music. And those industries are not ALL ABOUT FUN now, are they?.I generally agree with Jim, but this episode made me post my first feedback about his show, BECAUSE IT'S OK TO WANT MORE FROM AN INDUSTRY.

kiri2tsubasa:I have always used this definition of gamer. Do you play games, 'yes', do you like playing games, 'yes', do you know how to get the games that interest you (retail, DD, etc), 'yes', congratulations, you are a gamer.

a bit tangential, but the only real gripes i have with IOS games are not that they're too simple. or that they're too casual; its that i cant get them on my pc! seriously! i would fling money at my laptop hard enough to blow a hole through it if i could get a pc compatible version for angry birds or infinity blade!... and no i wont buy an i-phone.... unless apple makes a deal with bethesda and you can buy an apple pip boy...

There are hardcore gamers out there so proud of their self-styled character trait that they shall defend it jealously. For indeed, it is they who get to judge whether or not others are worthy of being called gamers, it is they who decide what is and what is not a true videogame, and they shall brutally eject any fail to live up to their high standards. It's just a shame that their standards are bollocks and their judgments hypocritical.

Everyone that gets in on the ground-floor of a medium or industry wants to immediately lock the door behind them. We grew up eating the baby-food and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches of early arcade gaming, and eventually moved up to the steak-and-potatoes of "grown up" games. The industry grew up with us, increasing the challenge to meet our ever-increasing expertise.

Along the way, we've forgotten that, while we're older now, new gamers are still being "born." Just because I'm not eating strained peas anymore doesn't mean they should be taken off the shelves.

This is not to suggest that casual games are only for kids. It's simply to suggest that not every game can cater to the hardest-core sensibilities. We still need casual games for:

1. Yes, the newcomers. The younger kids who don't have decades of prerequisite knowledge and experience that allow them to take on hardcore games right out of the gate.

2. The other end -- the former "hardcore gamers" who are now old enough to have families and responsibilities that might just take up more time than they used to.

What's happening is unfortunate, but not uncommon. A group of people use a particular medium to build an identity, and then they want to declare a moratorium on new recruiting so they can keep things their way forever.

MonkeyPunch:Does anyone actually consider themselves a hardcore, or casual gamer?Seems a bit two dimensional and restrictive...

Exactly, the term "Hardcore" is IMHO nothing but a publicity stunt of some videogame companies, saying that games that are simple, not realistic or not violent are for kids, and that true gamers need more depth and better graphics.

True gamers play videogames because they have fun. Games now a days are so diverse that there is something for everybody and there are gamers for every kind of game. Calling them names or telling them that they are not true gamers is to spit to the wind. End of story.